Official Journal of the European Communities COMMISSION
|
|
- Joel Preston
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 L 60/57 COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 31 October 2000 on Spain's corporation tax laws (notified under document number C(2000) 3269) (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2001/168/ECSC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 4(c) thereof, Having regard to Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry ( 1 ), and in particular Article 6(5) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above ( 2 ), and having regard to their comments, Whereas: I. PROCEDURE (1) By letter dated 16 April 1996 the Commission, having been alerted by competitors of Spanish steel firms, requested the Spanish authorities to supply information enabling it to assess the scope and effects of Article 34 of Act 43/1995 of 27 December 1995 on corporation tax ( 3 ). powers, the Spanish authorities were informed that the Commission decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 6(5) of the Steel Aid Code also covered those three Articles. (3) The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the ( 7 ). The Commission invited other Member States and interested parties to submit their comments on the matter. (4) The Spanish Government responded by letter of 13 October Unesid (Unión de Empresas Siderúrgicas), Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and CEOE (Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales) submitted observations to the Commission by letters dated 27 November 1997, 1 December 1997 and 27 November 1997 respectively. Spain replied to the comments received from third parties by letter dated 16 March (2) By letter dated 7 August 1997 the Commission informed the Spanish Government that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 6(5) of Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC ( the Steel Aid Code ) in respect of that measure. Since the provisions of Article 34 of Act 43/1995 were applied in the same terms by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya (Article 43 of Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 ( 4 )), the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa (Article 43 of Provincial Act 7/ 1996 of 4 July 1996 ( 5 )) and the Provincial Council of Álava (Article 43 of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 ( 6 )), those bodies enjoying autonomous taxation ( 1 ) OJ L 338, , p. 42. ( 2 ) OJ C 329, ( 3 ) BOE No 310, ( 4 ) BOB No 135, ( 5 ) BOG No 133, and No 138, (corrected text). ( 6 ) BOTHA No 90, ( 7 ) See footnote 2. II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID (5) Article 34 of Act 43/1995, entitled Deduction for export activities, provides that businesses engaged in export activities are entitled to tax credits amounting to 25 % of: (a) investments made in the creation of branches or permanent establishments abroad as well as the acquisition of shares in foreign companies or the setting-up of subsidiaries directly associated with the export of goods or services or the sale of tourism services in Spain;
2 L 60/58 EN (b) the costs of multiannual advertising and publicity campaigns for product launches; (c) the costs of market penetration and market research abroad; (d) the costs of taking part in fairs, exhibitions and other similar events, including those of an international character held in Spain. the ECSC Treaty and Decision No 2496/96/ECSC, on the ground that Spanish tax law did not provide for any tax benefit relating primarily or exclusively to exports by steel firms. (10) Moreover, although exporting was chosen as the feature indicating the presence of Spanish firms abroad, it was not in itself the purpose of the tax credit. It was for that reason that the amount of the credit did not depend on the extent of export activity and was not linked to the volume of exports. III. COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES (6) In their comments, both CEOE and Unesid opposed the Commission decision to initiate proceedings, mainly on the same grounds as those put forward by the Spanish authorities (see recitals 8 to 12). They emphasised in particular that, contrary to what was stated in the decision initiating proceedings, the provisions being challenged were not intended to promote the establishment of production branches abroad. CEOE added that similar measures were in force in other Member States. (11) According to the Spanish Government, Article 34 of Act 43/1995 should be regarded as a general measure and cannot be classed as State aid. The general nature of the rule in Article 34 should be clear from the following features: (i) the Article applied to all taxable persons, whether resident in Spain or abroad, provided that they operated through a permanent establishment. Thus, Article 34 afforded equal treatment to firms residing and not residing in Spanish territory; (7) Unlike the other two interested parties, Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl supported the Commission's decision to initiate the procedure, sharing its assessment that the measure constituted State aid. Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl also contended that: the deliberate promotion of exports in favour of Spanish companies distorted competition to the detriment of undertakings in other Member States, thus infringing the principles of the common market, the ECSC Treaty assumed that any national aid distorted competition; Article 4(c) prohibited tax aid, especially if it was aimed at facilitating sales in other Member States. (ii) it applied to all taxable persons regardless of the economic sector in which they operated; (iii) it was applied in a non-discretionary manner. The tax authorities did not supervise the grant of the credit provided for by Article 34. It was taxable persons who applied the credit themselves, the tax authorities having no other function than to check, as appropriate, that the requirements laid down by the rule had been met. Moreover, such checks were not carried out specifically with regard to Article 34 but, on the contrary, were part of the general monitoring of corporation tax; (iv) it traditionally formed part of the philosophy of the tax system in Spain. IV. COMMENTS BY SPAIN (8) In its answer to the decision initiating the procedure the Spanish Government replied that the rule which was the focus of the Commission's investigation had a long tradition in Spanish law, as it had been applied since corporation tax came into force in 1978, thus preceding Spain's accession to the European Communities. (9) The Spanish Government rejected the analysis that the general measures in Article 34 of Act 43/1995 possibly constituted export aid, in the form of tax credits, for investment carried out by steel firms, and contested the initiation of the procedure on the basis of Article 4 of (12) Lastly, the Spanish Government pointed out that the same tax credits had applied under Spanish law since Act 61/1978 of 27 December 1978 on corporation tax ( 8 ) was adopted. Article 26 of that Act, relating to tax deductions for investments, laid down in paragraph 3 the deductions available to exporting firms, in virtually the same terms as Article 34 of Act 43/1995. As the Court of Justice had consistently held, existing measures were deemed to be those which existed before the entry into force of the Treaty, in other words, in Spain's case, before the entry into force of the Act of Accession. In this respect, and given that they were laid down by law prior to Spain's entry into the Community, the tax credits in question constituted in any event existing measures. ( 8 ) BOE No 312,
3 L 60/59 V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID a legal point of view, the measure constitutes existing aid cannot be shared by the Commission. (13) Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty provides that subsidies or aids granted by Member States are recognised as incompatible with the common market and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited within the Community. The Steel Aid Code lays down the only exemptions from this general prohibition which can be granted under certain circumstances: (a) aid for research and development; (b) aid for environmental protection; (c) aid for closures. (14) It should be noted that none of these exemptions is invoked by Spain in the present case. (17) In determining whether in the present case the tax credit scheme has to be regarded as State aid, the Spanish authorities attach decisive importance in maintaining that the scheme does not constitute State aid to the fact that the tax reduction is, on the one hand, general and, on the other hand, directly applied by the recipient companies themselves without intervention by the public authorities; in other words, they claim that the practical application of this provision is not at the discretion of any public body. (18) On this aspect, in line with the case-law of the Court of Justice (see its judgment of 23 February 1961 in Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority ( 9 ) and the approach taken by the Commission ( 10 ), it is recalled that under Community law the notion of aid covers not only positive assistance from the State but also any measure that relieves an undertaking of a burden which it would otherwise have to bear, regardless of whether or not it is directly applied by the recipient companies. In this light, non-repayable grants, preferential loans from the State and credits against income or corporation tax are all measures which have to be regarded as State aid. (15) As to the argument, adduced both by Spain and by the two Spanish interested parties which submitted comments, that Act 43/1995 should have been regarded as existing aid as it consolidated legislation which had been in force since 1978, i.e. before Spain joined the Communities, and that the Commission therefore wrongly decided to initiate the procedure in the present case, the Commission must recall that the scope of its decision was the assessment of the measures under examination only under the ECSC Treaty rules, where the notion of existing aid does not exist. Article 4(c) of that Treaty provides, unlike Article 87 of the EC Treaty, that subsidies or aids granted by States are recognised as incompatible with the common market and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited within the Community. In the light of these provisions, the Commission takes the view that when joining the European Coal and Steel Community each new Member State must stop granting any kind of aid previously awarded to the undertakings covered by that Treaty. If it failed to do so, any aid granted by the new Member State from the date of its accession to the European Coal and Steel Community would have to be regarded as incompatible with the common market in the light of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. (16) Consequently, Spain's argument could be taken into account only in relation to the State aid provisions of the EC Treaty. However, the Commission's decision to initiate proceedings did not deal with aid given to Community companies, and so the argument that, from (19) In particular, and by analogy with the judgment of the Court of 15 March 1994 in Case C-387/92 Banco Exterior de España v Ayuntamiento de Valencia ( 11 ), the Commission considers that a tax credit granted to certain undertakings constitutes State aid since it places the recipients in a more favourable financial position than other taxpayers ( 12 ). (20) As to the specificity of the measure, it is worth noting that according to both the Commission's approach ( 13 ) and the case-law of the Court of Justice (see the judgments of 10 December 1969 in joined Cases 6 and 11/69 Commission v France ( 14 ) and 7 June 1988 in Case 57/86 Greece v Commission ( 15 ), a measure is specific and therefore must be regarded as State aid instead of a general measure where, although prima facie it might be seen as general in form, in practice it supports only a particular group of companies. In the present case, firstly, the tax measures under examination support those companies carrying out certain export activities and exclude companies that do not export as well as exporters that carry out export activities not covered by the provision and even exporters that carry out in Spain the type of investments covered by the provision. Secondly, apart from the fact that it has existed since ( 9 ) [1961] ECR 3. ( 10 ) Point 10 of the Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (98/C 384/03) (OJ C 384, , p. 3). ( 11 ) [1994] ECR I-877, paragraph 14. ( 12 ) Point 9 of Commission notice 98/C 384/03 (see footnote 10). ( 13 ) Points 13, 16 and 18 of Commission notice 98/C 384/03 (see footnote 10). ( 14 ) [1969] ECR 523. ( 15 ) [1988) ECR 2865.
4 L 60/60 EN , neither the Spanish Government nor the interested parties which submitted comments have given any reasons why the tax measures in question are necessary to the functioning and effectiveness of the Spanish tax system ( 16 ). Thirdly, although it is true that the discretion of a public body in the application of a measure contributes to the classification of that measure as specific, the mere lack of discretion does not make the measure general. (21) As to the argument that comparable measures exist in other Member States, the question is of no consequence since any such measures could themselves be the subject of the procedures laid down in the ECSC Treaty (see the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 March 1977 in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig v Germany)( 17 ). (22) Finally, the Spanish interested parties which submitted comments as well the Spanish Government drew the Commission's attention to the fact that, contrary to what was stated in the decision initiating proceedings, the provisions in question are not intended to promote the establishment of production branches abroad. After having assessed the wording of Article 34 of Act 43/ 1995, namely its title and first paragraph, the Commission comes to the conclusion that the creation of production branches is not specifically envisaged in the Spanish provisions under examination except where those production branches are related to the exporting activity of the recipient company. VI. CONCLUSIONS (23) It emerges from the wording of Act 43/1995 that the provisions under examination are applicable, among other things, to steel undertakings which are taxable in Spain, are engaged in export activities and carry out certain investments or incur certain expenses abroad. Thus, such export undertakings receive a clear advantage over (i) steel undertakings which are taxable in Spain but do not export, (ii) steel undertakings which are taxable in Spain and export but do not carry out such investments abroad (because for instance, they decide to make the same type of investments in Spain) and (iii) steel undertakings which are not taxable in Spain. The Commission therefore concludes that the tax credit scheme under examination, contrary to what is claimed by the Spanish authorities and by the Spanish interested parties which submitted comments, is not general in its application and, indeed, is in itself capable of giving rise ( 16 ) Point 23 of Commission notice 98/C 384/03 (see footnote 10). ( 17 ) [1977] ECR 595, paragraph 24. ( 20 ) OJ C 297, , p. 2. to the grant of State aid to certain undertakings. It therefore constitutes State aid under the Community rules and, in so far as it benefits ECSC steel undertakings, is contrary to Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. Neither do any of the exemptions laid down in the Steel Aid Code apply in the present case. (24) As to the recovery of the aid, if the Commission finds that State aid which is incompatible with the common market has been granted, it usually requires the Member State to recover it. However, the Commission will not require recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law. (25) In the present case, the Commission notes that on 30 September 1992 it adopted a decision on the changes made by France to the tax arrangements applicable to commercial or service establishments abroad ( 18 ). Those changes involved the extension of the then current arrangements for commercial or service investments within the Community to those made outside the Community and the abolition of the specific arrangements for the latter. The Commission found that the arrangements did not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) of the EEC Treaty (now Article 87 EC) and that they facilitated the completion of the common market. The French scheme prior to 1992 enabled French undertakings investing abroad with a view to setting up sales subsidiaries or research departments there to receive temporary tax relief equivalent to the losses incurred by the foreign establishment (if it was located within the Community) or the amount of the investment in the foreign establishment (if it was located outside the Community). For industrial investments outside the Community agreement with the Ministry was required and the tax exemption could amount to 50 % of the investment. In Decision 73/263/EEC ( 19 ) the Commission had concluded that this tax scheme was neutral as regards competition and compatible with the rules on the right of establishment. The scheme is similar in substance to the Spanish one and was in force when Spain joined the ECSC in (26) The Commission also notes that in June 1996 the then Member of the Commission with special responsibility for competition, replying on behalf of the Commission to a written question by Member of the European Parliament Mr Raul Rosado Fernandes concerning the Spanish tax deduction scheme under examination, recalled that the measures had been notified by the Spanish Government on Spain's accession and that the Commission had never raised any objections to their implementation ( 20 ). (27) Finally, the Commission considers that the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure includes only a preliminary assessment as to whether the proposed measure is to be regarded as aid. The preliminary nature of the assessment was underlined by the Commission in its decision to initiate proceedings in the present case by ( 18 ) Commission press release dated 30 September 1992 (IP/92/770); OJ C 3, , p. 2 (aid NN 96/92, p. 5). ( 19 ) Decision of 25 July 1973 on the tax concessions granted, pursuant to Article 34 of French Law No of 12 July 1965 and to the circular of 24 March 1967, to French undertakings setting up businesses abroad (OJ L 253, , p. 10).
5 L 60/61 referring only to the likelihood of the measures in question constituting State aid. This is also evident in the present case from the length of time that the Commission took to investigate and examine these measures. It should be noted that Spain was not in any way responsible for delays in the proceedings. (28) In this context, and in view of the foregoing, the Commission considers that even the most cautious and well informed steel firms could not have foreseen the tax provisions under examination being classed as State aid contrary to Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty, and that they could rightly claim legitimate expectations. The Commission therefore deems it appropriate not to order the recovery of the aid in question granted prior to the adoption of the present Decision, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Article 1 Any aid granted by Spain under: (a) Article 34 of Act 43/1995 of 27 December 1995 on corporation tax; (b) Article 43 of Provincial Act 3/96 of 26 June 1996 on corporation tax adopted by the Provincial Council of Vizcaya; (c) Article 43 of Provincial Act 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax adopted by the Provincial Council of Guipúzcoa; or (d) Article 43 of Provincial Act 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax adopted by the Provincial Council of Álava, to ECSC steel undertakings established in Spain is incompatible with the common market in coal and steel. Article 2 Spain shall forthwith take appropriate measures to ensure that ECSC steel undertakings established in Spain do not receive the aid referred to in Article 1. Article 3 Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. Article 4 This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain. Done at Brussels, 31 October For the Commission Mario MONTI Member of the Commission
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. State aid No SA (2015/NN) Hungary Hungarian health contribution of tobacco industry businesses
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 15.07.2015 C(2015) 4805 final PUBLIC VERSION This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State aid No SA.41187 (2015/NN) Hungary Hungarian health
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 24 October
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 24 October 2000 1 1. By this action brought before the Court of Justice on 25 February 1999, the Commission seeks a declaration that the Federal
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Communities
C 384/3 Commission notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (98/C 384/03) (Text with EEA relevance) Introduction 1. On 1 December 1997, following
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 16 July Case C-182/08. Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. v Finanzamt München II.
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 16 July 2009 1 Case C-182/08 Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. v Finanzamt München II I Introduction 1. By an action brought on 15 April 2008, the Commission of the European
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, C (2007) 1959 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. COMMISSION DECISION of 10 May 2007 ON
More informationCOMMISSION DECISION. of 19 July on aid scheme C 3/2006 implemented by Luxembourg for 1929 holding companies and billionaire holding companies
21.12.2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 366/47 COMMISSION DECISION of 19 July 2006 on aid scheme C 3/2006 implemented by Luxembourg for 1929 holding companies and billionaire holding companies
More informationReports of Cases. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 9 October 2014 *
Reports of Cases JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Seventh Chamber) 9 October 2014 * (Request for a preliminary ruling Competition State aid Article 107(1) TFEU Concept of State aid Property tax on immovable property
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION DECISION. Of
EN REC 01/07 EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 4-7-2008 COM(2008) 3262 final COMMISSION DECISION Of 4-7-2008 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified
More informationProfits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company shall be exempt from withholding tax.
EC Court of Justice, 3 June 2010 * Case C-487/08 European Commission v Kingdom of Spain First Chamber: A. Tizzano, President of the Chamber, E. Levits (Rapporteur), A. Borg Barthet, J.-J. Kasel and M.
More informationORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 September 2002 *
MERTENS ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 September 2002 * In Case C-431/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d'appel de Mons (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationEC Court of Justice, 22 March Case C-383/05 Raffaele Talotta v État belge. Legal context
EC Court of Justice, 22 March 2007 1 Case C-383/05 Raffaele Talotta v État belge First Chamber: Advocate General: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilei (Rapporteur)
More informationJudgment of the Court of 5 October French Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Judgment of the Court of 5 October 1999 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) - Concept of aid - Relief on social security
More informationEU Court of Justice, 16 June 2011 * Case C-10/10. European Commission v Republic of Austria. Legal context EUJ
EUJ EU Court of Justice, 16 June 2011 * Case C-10/10 European Commission v Republic of Austria Fourth Chamber: J.-C. Bonichot, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, C. Toader, A. Prechal (Rapporteur)
More informationPromotion of dubbing and subtitling of films in Catalan
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 24.03.2010 C(2010) 1247 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State aid N 33/2010 Spain Promotion of
More informationState Aid No. N131/2009 Finland Residential Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Scheme
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 12.05.2010 C (2010) 2974 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State Aid No. N131/2009 Finland Residential
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 June 2008 (*)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 19 June 2008 (*) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Posting of workers Freedom to provide services Directive 96/71/EC Public policy provisions Weekly
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY Doc. No. 96-529-I Dec. No. 16/96/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION OF 7 FEBRUARY 1996 TO PROPOSE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ICELAND WITH REGARD TO STATE AID IN THE FORM
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 27 November 2003 *
JUDGMENT OF 27. 11. 2003 CASE C-497/01 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 27 November 2003 * In Case C-497/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal d'arrondissement de Luxembourg
More informationCOMMISSION DECISION. of ON THE STATE AID SA (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 30.6.2017 C(2017) 4449 final COMMISSION DECISION of 30.6.2017 ON THE STATE AID SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector (Text
More informationHeinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
EC Court of Justice, 2 October 2008 * Case C-360/06 Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg Second Chamber: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, L. Bay
More informationKlaus Biehl v. Administration des Contributions du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg (Case C-175/88)
Klaus Biehl v. Administration des Contributions du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg (Case C-175/88) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (5th Chamber) ECJ (5th Chamber) (Presiding, Slynn P.C.;
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 22 March 2007 *
TALOTTA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 22 March 2007 * In Case C-383/05, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October
More informationDIRECTIVE 94/19/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes
DIRECTIVE 94/19/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, Having regard to the Treaty establishing
More informationEC Court of Justice, 12 December 2002 * Case C-385/00. F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën. Legal framework
EC Court of Justice, 12 December 2002 * Case C-385/00 F. W. L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën Fifth Chamber: Advocate General: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY Doc. No: 99-9493-1 Ref. No: SAM 030.99.003 Dec. No: 331/99/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION OF 16 DECEMBER 1999 ON A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO RADIO LIECHTENSTEIN (LIECHTENSTEIN)
More informationAid No NN 67/2007 Stamp duty relief for farm consolidation
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 3.10.2008 C(2008) 5711 Subject: Sir, State aid/ireland Aid No NN 67/2007 Stamp duty relief for farm consolidation The Commission wishes to inform Ireland that, having examined
More informationCase No COMP/M IBERDROLA / SCOTTISH POWER. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE. Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 26/03/2007
EN Case No COMP/M.4517 - IBERDROLA / SCOTTISH POWER Only the English text is available and authentic. REGULATION (EC) No 139/2004 MERGER PROCEDURE Article 6(1)(b) NON-OPPOSITION Date: 26/03/2007 In electronic
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 4 JUNE 2008 on alleged state aid granted to the Leifur Eiríksson Air Terminal Ltd.
Case No: 60482 Event No: 457668 Decision No: 341/08/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 4 JUNE 2008 on alleged state aid granted to the Leifur Eiríksson Air Terminal Ltd. (Iceland) THE EFTA SURVEILLANCE
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 2.7.2009 COM(2009) 325 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the VAT group option provided for
More informationEC Court of Justice, 29 March Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz eg v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte. National legislation
EC Court of Justice, 29 March 2007 1 Case C-347/04 Rewe Zentralfinanz eg v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte Second Chamber: Advocate General: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Kluka, R. Silva de Lapuerta,
More information1) I am pleased to inform you that the Commission has decided to approve the above aid scheme until 31 December 2013.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 04/04/2011 C (2011) 2377 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State aid 32144 (N 2011) Spain State
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 7 February Case C-6/12. P Oy
AG Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston, 7 February 2013 1 Case C-6/12 P Oy 1. The Court has already examined on a number of occasions whether national tax measures fall within the scope of the European
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 1 March
JP MORGAN FLEMING CLAVERHOUSE INVESTMENT TRUST AND OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL KOKOTT delivered on 1 March 2007 1 I Introduction 1. Under the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/ EEC ('the Sixth Directive), 2 the
More informationB COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC)No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff
1987R2658 EN 01.01.2000 002.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC)No 2658/87 of 23 July
More informationEC Court of Justice, 29 April Case C-311/97. Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State)
EC Court of Justice, 29 April 1999 Case C-311/97 Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) Fifth Chamber: Advocate General: P. Jann, President of the First Chamber, acting for the President
More informationHAVING REGARD TO the Agreement on the European Economic Area 1, in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
Doc. No: Ref. No: Dec. No.: 03-425-I SAM030.02.002 16/03/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 5 February 2003 regarding amendment to the SkatteFUNN scheme concerning tax deduction for R&D expenses
More informationCOMMISSION DECISION. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.7.2016 C(2016) 4056 final COMMISSION DECISION of 4.7.2016 ON THE MEASURE SA.40018 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the 2014 Amendment to the Hungarian food
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 *
COMMISSION v FRANCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 27 February 2002 * In Case C-302/00, Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and C. Giolito, acting as Agents, with
More informationThe application of the Mutual Recognition Regulation to non-ce marked construction products
EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL Guidance document 1 Brussels, 13.10.2011 - The application of the Mutual Recognition Regulation to non-ce marked construction products
More informationMarks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty s Inspector of Taxes)
EC Court of Justice, 13 December 2005 1 Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty s Inspector of Taxes) Grand Chamber: Advocate General: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans
More information4. Article 63(1) TFEU and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU constitute the EU law framework for this case.
Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, 10 September 2015 1 Case C-252/14 Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek v Skatteverket Introduction 1. It is a well-established principle of the case-law of the Court that,
More informationEFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 1 June 2011 on tax deductions in respect of intellectual property rights. (Liechtenstein)
Case No: 69131 Event No: 595539 Dec. No: 177/11/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 1 June 2011 on tax deductions in respect of intellectual property rights (Liechtenstein) The EFTA Surveillance
More informationOPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 14 March 1989 *
OPINION OF MR MISCHO CASE C-342/87 OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 14 March 1989 * Mr President, Members of the Court First question 2. The Hoge Raad formulated its first question in
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION. State aid SA (2013/C) - (ex 2013/NN) United Kingdom Gibraltar corporate tax regime
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 16.10.2013 C(2013) 6654 final PUBLIC VERSION This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: State aid SA.34914 (2013/C) - (ex 2013/NN) United Kingdom
More informationAlfredo Martínez Domínguez, Joaquín Benítez Urbano, Agapito Mateos Cruz and Carmen Calvo Fernández v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse
Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 7February2002 Alfredo Martínez Domínguez, Joaquín Benítez Urbano, Agapito Mateos Cruz and Carmen Calvo Fernández v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Kindergeldkasse
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 September 1996 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 26 September 1996 * In Case C-241/94, French Republic, represented by Edwige Belliard, Assistant Director in the Directorate for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Catherine
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 October 2001 *
ATHINAIKI ZITHOPIIA JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 4 October 2001 * In Case C-294/99, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Greece) for a preliminary ruling
More informationA new perspective for Spanish shipyards reducing distortions in shipbuilding
A new perspective for Spanish shipyards reducing distortions in shipbuilding Hans BERGMAN, Directorate-General Competition, unit H-1, and Kai STRUCKMANN, formerly Directorate-General Competition Introduction
More informationCase C-6/16 Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
EU Court of Justice, 7 September 2017 * Case C-6/16 Eqiom SAS, formerly Holcim France SAS, Enka SA v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics Sixth Chamber: E. Regan, President of the Chamber, A. Arabadjiev
More informationP. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits and J.J. Kasel, Judges
EC Court of Justice, 11 December 2008 * Case C-285/07 A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften First Chamber: Advocate General: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet,
More information(Norway) Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2, in particular to Articles 61 to 63 and Protocol 26 thereof,
Case No: 63768 (former Case 62610) Event No: 453744 Dec. No. 719/07/COL EFTA SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY DECISION of 19 DECEMBER 2007 to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol
More informationL 110/56 Official Journal of the European Union
L 110/56 Official Journal of the European Union 30.4.2005 COMMISSION DECISION of 20 October 2004 concerning the aid scheme implemented by the Kingdom of Spain for the airline Intermediación Aérea SL (notified
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE OPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 21 March 2007 C(2007) 1170 final PUBLIC VERSION WORKING LANGUAGE This document is made available for information purposes only. COMMISSION DECISION of 21 March
More informationECJ to Review Belgian Dividend Treatment
Volume 52, Number 5 November 3, 2008 ECJ to Review Belgian Dividend Treatment by Marc Quaghebeur Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, November 3, 2008, p. 372 Reprinted from Tax Notes Int l, November 3, 2008,
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 6 July 1995 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) 6 July 1995 * In Case C-62/93, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinas for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
More informationDECISIONS Official Journal of the European Union L 7/3
11.1.2012 Official Journal of the European Union L 7/3 DECISIONS COMMISSION DECISION of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State
More informationDIRECTIVE 94/19/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes. (OJ L 135, , p.
1994L0019 EN 16.03.2009 002.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B DIRECTIVE 94/19/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
More informationBOUANICH. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 19 January 2006*
BOUANICH JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) 19 January 2006* In Case C-265/04, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Kammarrätten i Sundsvall (Sweden), made by decision of
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 19 September 2002 *
TULLIASIAMIES AND SIILIN JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 19 September 2002 * In Case C-101/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
More informationdecision-making process in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 2015/751
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate General for Competition Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union Director General Brussels, 5 January 2017 COMP/D 1/DF/lb
More informationFKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel
EC Court of Justice, 3 October 2006 1 Case C-290/04 FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel Grand Chamber: Advocate General: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans,
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION. SA (2014/NN ex 2012/CP) Spain Differential tax rates for online and land-based gambling in Spain
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 17.03.2015 C(2015) 1644 final PUBLIC VERSION This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: SA.34469 (2014/NN ex 2012/CP) Spain Differential tax rates
More informationThe main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
EC Court of Justice, 12 July 2005 1 Case C-403/03 Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V Grand Chamber: Advocate General: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 19.4.2001 COM(2001) 214 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE The elimination
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CRUZ VILLALÓN delivered on 17 March 2011 (1) Case C 503/09. Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL CRUZ VILLALÓN delivered on 17 March 2011 (1) Case C 503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 12 December 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF 12. 12. 2002 CASE C-385/00 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 12 December 2002 * In Case C-385/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 27 March 1985 *
JUDGMENT OF 27. 3. 1985 CASE 249/83 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 27 March 1985 * In Case 249/83 REFERENCE to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arbeidsrechtbank [Labour
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 February 2009
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 12 February 2009 (Directive 90/435/EEC Article 4(1) Direct effect National legislation designed to prevent double taxation of distributed profits Deduction of the
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI delivered on 7 June
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI delivered on 7 June 2007 1 1. By the present reference for a preliminary ruling the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Regional Court of Appeal, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI delivered on 22 March 2012 (1) Case C 583/10. The United States of America v Christine Nolan
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL MENGOZZI delivered on 22 March 2012 (1) Case C 583/10 The United States of America v Christine Nolan (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England &
More informationWORKING PAPER. Brussels, 15 February 2019 WK 2235/2019 INIT LIMITE ECOFIN FISC
Brussels, 15 February 2019 WK 2235/2019 INIT LIMITE ECOFIN FISC WORKING PAPER This is a paper intended for a specific community of recipients. Handling and further distribution are under the sole responsibility
More informationGuidelines on state aid: the basics
Guidelines on state aid: the basics South Baltic Programme 2014-2020 Ministry of Development Territorial Cooperation Department Warsaw 2015 Guidelines on state aid: the basics 2 Introduction The state
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 June 2013
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 3 June 2013 (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations Freedom of establishment Freedom to provide services Articles 31 and 36 EEA Obligation on temporary work agencies
More information1 di 6 05/11/ :55
1 di 6 05/11/2012 10:55 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 27 January 2011 (*) (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Article 49 EC Freedom to provide services Non reimbursement of costs
More informationCourt of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 16 May
OPINION OF MR LÉGER CASE C-290/04 OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 16 May 2006 1 1. By this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany) asks the
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 9 December
LABORATOIRES FOURNIER OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 9 December 2004 1 1. The present case raises the question whether legislation of a MemberState which provides for a corporation tax
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 March 1992 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 11 March 1992 * In Joined Cases C-78/90 to C-83/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by Cour d'appel (Appeal Court), Poitiers, for a preliminary ruling in
More informationOpinion of Advocate General Kokott, 17 November Case C-68/15. I Introduction
AG Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, 17 November 2016 1 Case C-68/15 X I Introduction 1. In this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Court of Justice has been asked to determine whether a tax levied
More informationStrojírny Prostejov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací financní reditelství
EU Court of Justice, 19 June 2014 * Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13 Strojírny Prostejov, a.s. (C-53/13), ACO Industries Tábor s.r.o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací financní reditelství First Chamber: A. Tizzano
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union
10.1.2018 L 5/27 COMMISSION IMPLEMTING REGULATION (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles whether declared as originating in Sri Lanka or not from
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 26/XI/2007 C (2007) 5645 final COMMISSION DECISION of 26/XI/2007 finding that the remission of import duties is not justified in a particular case
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 18 October 2007 *
NAVICON JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 18 October 2007 * In Case C-97/06, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid (Spain), made by
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 19.12.2006 COM(2006) 824 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 January 1998 *
LADBROKE RACING v COMMISSION JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 27 January 1998 * In Case T-67/94, Ladbroke Racing Ltd, a company incorporated under English
More informationPUBLIC. Brussels, 28 October 2002 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 13545/02 LIMITE FISC 271
Conseil UE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 28 October 2002 13545/02 PUBLIC LIMITE FISC 271 COVER NOTE from : the Secretary-General of the European Commission signed by Mr Sylvain BISARRE, Director
More informationCOMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No /.. of
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.10.2014 C(2014) 7164 final COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) No /.. of 8.10.2014 on the provisional system of instalments on contributions to cover the administrative
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 20 June 2018 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 20 June 2018 (OR. en) Interinstitutional Files: 2017/0251 (CNS) 2017/0249 (NLE) 2017/0248 (CNS) 10335/18 FISC 266 ECOFIN 638 NOTE From: To: No. Cion doc.: Subject:
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 26.01.2006 COM(2006) 22 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION. Brussels, C (2011) 4932 final. State aid SA (2011/NN) Ireland Air Transport - Exemptions from air passenger tax
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.07.2011 C (2011) 4932 final PUBLIC VERSION This document is made available for information purposes only. Subject: Sir, State aid SA.29064 (2011/NN) Ireland Air Transport
More informationHughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'économie, des Finances et de l'industrie
EC Court of Justice, 11 March 2004 1 Case C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l'économie, des Finances et de l'industrie Fifth Chamber: Advocate General: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
More information1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.
EC Court of Justice, 15 April 2010 * Case C-96/08 CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató, Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi kft v Adó- és Pénzügyi ellenörzési Hivatal (APEH) Hatósági
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 January 1986 *
COMMISSION v FRANCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 28 January 1986 * In Case 270/83 Commission of the European Communities, represented by Georges Kremlis, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent, assisted
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 20 June 2002 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 20 June 2002 * In Case C-287/00, Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Wilms and K. Gross, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
More informationJozef van Coile v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge Belgium
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 Jozef van Coile v Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge Belgium Social security - Regulation
More informationOPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 17 November
OPINION OF MR JACOBS CASE C-493/04 OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL JACOBS delivered on 17 November 2005 1 1. In the present case, the Gerechtshof te 's- Hertogenbosch (Regional Court of Appeal, 's- Hertogenbosch)
More informationA paper issued by the European Federation of Accountants (FEE)
FEE OBSERVATIONS ON EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE DECIDED CASE C - 446/03 MARKS & SPENCER V. HER MAJESTY S INSPECTOR OF TAXES A paper issued by the European Federation of Accountants (FEE) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 5 July 2005 *
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 5 July 2005 * In Case C-376/03, REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te s-hertogenbosch (Netherlands), made by decision of
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 17.10.2003 COM(2003) 613 final 2003/0239 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DIRECTIVE amending Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
More informationThe Liège Court of First Instance in Belgium has
Kerckhaert-Morres Revisited: ECJ to Reconsider Belgian Taxation of Inbound s by Marc Quaghebeur Marc Quaghebeur is with Vandendijk & Partners in Brussels. The Liège Court of First Instance in Belgium has
More information